http://urchin.earth.li/~twic/Ulrich_Drepper_Is_A_.html
On Saturday, 4 February 2012 16:18:35 UTC+8, Snark wrote: > > Le 04/02/2012 06:00, Dima Pasechnik a �crit : > > It's well-known how to compute gamma() better than it is implemented in > > (e)glibc, the prevalent Linux libc implementation, > > which computes exp(lgamma()) rather than gamma() directly. > > > > See e.g. > > http://oai.cwi.nl/oai/asset/10080/10080A.pdf > > > > Perhaps I should give it to a student, to re-write in C or Cython :) > > 1. Do the libc used in the *BSD family of systems do better? > yes. Already an obvious reduction to a smaller argument using Г(x+1)=xГ(х) improves the quality of the result quite considerably in the range of 2<x<20 or so... > 2. If there are better algorightms, they may not be known to the various > libc authors, and they'd probably gladly accept patches. > well, the glibc maintainers are in this business for quite a while, and people are not happy; here is why debian/ubuntu use eglibc now. http://www.osnews.com/thread?362116 (or even this <http://urchin.earth.li/~twic/Ulrich_Drepper_Is_A_.html>) But eglibc does not seem to be happy to compete with glibc for non-embeddable systems. http://www.eglibc.org/contributing Anyway, that's politics, and I personally hate it... Snark on #sagemath > > -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
